Writ jurisdiction declined where disputed facts concerning alleged waiver of Customs Section 124 notice require statutory revision.

The petitioner, an Indian national, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport from Bahrain on 2 June 2024.

After crossing the Green Channel, he was intercepted and a 116-gram gold bar of stated 999 purity, bearing foreign markings, was recovered from him and detained by Customs.

Customs relied on a purported statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in which the petitioner allegedly stated that he did not require a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) or personal hearing.

By Order-in-Original dated 20 August 2024, the gold bar was absolutely confiscated and a penalty of ₹1,15,000 was imposed under Sections 112 and 114.

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 27 August 2025.

The petitioner then invoked Article 226, principally alleging non-issuance of a written SCN and violation of natural justice.

The Court applied Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which generally requires notice and an opportunity of hearing before confiscation or imposition of penalty, while permitting an oral notice at the request of the person concerned under its first proviso.

It considered the statutory appellate and revisionary scheme under Sections 128, 129A(1), and 129DD, under which revision before the Central Government is available against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to goods imported or exported as baggage.

The Court reiterated that availability of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar to Article 226 jurisdiction, particularly in cases involving alleged breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.

It also considered M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, concerning the discretionary nature of the alternative-remedy rule, and Union of India v. Jatin Ahuja, concerning strict compliance with the statutory scheme under Sections 110(2) and 124.

However, where material facts are disputed and require factual examination, the writ court ordinarily should not undertake a conclusive adjudication.

The Court held that the dispute could not be resolved merely by observing that no written SCN had been issued, because Section 124 itself contemplates an oral SCN at the person’s request.

The petitioner disputed the authenticity and voluntariness of the alleged Section 108 statement, asserting that documents had been prepared in advance and signed without proper explanation; the Department maintained that the statement was voluntary and unretracted.

There was also a factual dispute regarding whether the petitioner’s statement constituted a request for an oral SCN and whether any oral notice was actually given.

Determining these matters would require examination of the surrounding circumstances, the documents, the communications of 2 and 7 June 2024, and the petitioner’s alleged waiver of procedural safeguards.

Since the petitioner had already pursued the statutory appeal and had an available revision remedy under Section 129DD, the Court considered that the revisional authority was the appropriate forum for determining these disputed factual and legal questions.

The Court further noted the Department’s undertaking to provide a personal hearing and reconsider the matter in accordance with law, while clarifying that the undertaking could not be treated as validating any defective waiver or dispensing with mandatory statutory requirements.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue revision under Section 129DD against the Order-in-Appeal dated 27 August 2025.

If filed within four weeks, the Revisional Authority was directed not to reject the revision merely because the petitioner had previously approached the High Court.

All issues, including non-issuance of the SCN, the alleged oral SCN, the voluntariness and legal effect of the documents, and the legality of the confiscation and penalty, were left open for determination by the competent authority.